Social Commentary & A Bit Of Poetry On The Side

Menu

That Fat, Irrelevant Beyatch

While Imus is taking much flak for saying two words about those lady basketball players, I have yet to hear the mainstream press condemn Roseanne Barr, who just defamed the entire gay community with this lovely rant on a California Radio show:

“Never once in my 54 years have I ever once heard a gay or lesbian person who’s politically active say one thing about anything that was not about them.“They don’t care about minimum wage, they don’t care about any other group other than their own self because you know, some people say being gay and lesbian is a totally narcissistic thing and sometimes I wonder.”

After being condemned by the Victory Fund, she’s issued an apology on her blog.

Big whoop-te-doo.

First of all, it IS all about us. And how dare she say so out loud.

Secondly, how on earth are we supposed to take this anything this woman says as serious? This is the same woman who has written recently that . . . well, just read it:

Mary Magdelene was a follower of Miriam, Jesus’ mother, who was raised in the Holy Temple from her birth. She was the last of the Temple Priestesses (Shekkinah -“goddess”- Worshippers).

They killed her son to get rid of the last vestige of The Goddess, upon whom all the world’s religions are based. They then killed all the women who knew the truth behind christianity. It was the war of the women that still goes on now…blaming men is a great cover for it, but again, it is my theory that women are to blame for everything that men do. Women want a male God, he is their Golem (totem-penis). Last night at Passover, we invoked and prayed to the Goddess (as does every jew, although unwittingly). She is finally answering our prayers and making herself seen once again…Shekkinah Rising, after two thousand years…get ready, She is Pissed! She demands that women answer for what they have done to each other’s children.

Post navigation

10 thoughts on “That Fat, Irrelevant Beyatch”

But she has a point. Given, she phrased it badly (and pretty much said so in her apology where she encouraged gays and lesbians to write in or go on air and “let her have it”), but I do see a core of truth in her statement. It was hyperbole to say “all” gay and lesbians put their own issues above other issues that may deserve a higher priority, but a significant portion do.

To be fair, this is probably true of most people, that they care very little about issues that do not directly affect them. It’s particularly interesting to compare this outburst with the Imus thing in this light. Imus may be a racist fossil, but he’s also given a huge amount of money to fight children’s diseases while never having lost a child. That’s not completely altruistic, certainly, but it does ask a question: can bad behavior be offset by good behavior elsewhere?

It’s also notable to examine her comment in relation to the current state of “gay activism”, namely organizations like HRC and NGLTF who have so embraced the Democratic party platform as to become little more than subservient holdings of the Dems, abandoning their main goal of increasing visibility and rights for gays and lesbians. One might say the only good thing about this is that it blows Rosanne’s argument out of the water. Obviously gays and lesbians care about other issues if they’re willing to support organizations that are so quick to abandon their power and their focus. I’m not sure this is true, however.

Of course, maybe I’m just really sensitized to this right now, as I’m reading through Jack’s “Androphillia.” Sometimes the way he says it makes me want to track him down and kick him in the junk, but he’s got important points.

Isn’t this just her usual schtick? She’s irreverent to everyone and respects nothing. She loves a good fight and the attention. She couldn’t care less who she insults. As long as her name is on the airwaves, in print, and blogs, it’s “mission accomplished.” Oops. Did I say that?

But I would disagree with one point. It’s not that HRC, NGLTF, et al. have abandoned their goals of “gay rights”; they’ve simply twisted it so that disagreeing with the Democrat Party on any basis makes you anti-gay. They’ve vastly expanded gay rights to include such things as double-digit minimum wages, free healthcare for all, punishing the rich, freedom for Palestine, etc — all of which we must support because we are gay.

And honestly, what it sounds like Jack has done is the same thing Bill Cosby did — have the balls to stand up and say that what’s being done is self-destructive.

Finally, if you want to know why it’s not all over the media, one thing to keep in mind is that Roseanne Barr is in very well with the groups that hold the leash of gay leftist organizations like HRC.

On the second level, there’s no well-known gays out there who could say that she was incorrect without being vastly hypocritical.

Well, I have no desire to get into a fight…er, discussion with you, NDT, concerning “abandonment” of power or “twisting” of vision. I think we’ve found there are plenty of fun and diverse things we can argue about…er, discuss, without having to argue semantics. 😉

I will say that over the course of the last year or so, I have developed a lot more sympathy for and understanding of this point of view than I had previously. I don’t know if this is because I have been more exposed to such opinions or if the incidence level has grown to such a degree that it simply can not be ignored. I do feel, though, this isn’t necessarily unique to, for lack of a better term, homosexual culture. It seems a lot of redefining is going on at the moment, so much so that it’s a veritable zeitgeist, at least in the thirtysomething crowd of my experience.

As for Jack, I haven’t finished the book yet, because I can only read so much of it before I either have to go back and reread to see if I actually understood what he said or am struck by a serious case of, “Methinks the lady doth protest too much.” However, I would strongly encourage you to pick up a copy and give it a read. He makes some interesting arguments and clarified some of his stances in a way that makes me think he and I aren’t really that far apart on many issues. I still want to frequently kick him in the junk for his occasionally insufferable delivery, which is an awkward position for a Quaker to find himself in, but I’ve resisted buying a ticket to Portland for the time being.

I am, however, going on an Alaskan cruise in May and we leave from Seattle, so I may make a side trip to Portland and I may pack my kickin’ boots.

I will say that over the course of the last year or so, I have developed a lot more sympathy for and understanding of this point of view than I had previously.

You may have finally had the chance to meet and interact with more-iconoclastic gays, i.e. me, Matt, Robbie, Jack, etc. If there’s one thing the Internets are good at doing, it’s letting people find those who are into things you never imagined OTHER people thought before.

Based on what I know about Jack’s past, I’m sure the book is very cathartic for him — and cathartic books tend to be an exercise in protestation (as in distancing yourself as much from what you used to do and value as possible) or self-flagellation. I may trapse over to one of the bookstores from which it hasn’t been banned here.

I rarely ever agree with anything Jack says. But I will say this: it is interesting stuff to read. And it isn’t just gender theory either, it’s overtly political. His writing is almost a manifesto that defends gay conservatism against the charge that it is “objectively irrational.” I can see why many conservative gays (especially white males) would embrace it.

He implies that homosexuality is an integral part of Western notions of masculinity, which of course, is the anti-thesis of the left’s whole idea that gay rights is a form of minority resistance. Rather than align themselves with ethnic minorities and feminism, he says, gays who are already in a position of power should fully support “traditional manliness” and the trappings of privilege it holds.

I certainly have no love for this POV. But I think it at least deserves the same consideration as the post-modern rantings of say, Judith Butler. This is why I’m very disturbed by the fact that many bookstores have decided not to carry Jack’s book. Booksellers should not be in the business of telling me what I can or cannot read.